Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the leve

After Clean Air Act, pollutants level has fallen by 18 %.
This suggests that is has worked effectively.
However, during the same period the state saw economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent.

Conclusion: It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

The author concludes that at least half of the pollution decline (9-10%) was caused by economic decline. Why? He seems to be assuming that pollution is proportional to businesses. Since businesses declined by 10%, he is assuming that about 10% pollution decline can be attributed to that. Hence (C) is correct.

(E) is incorrect. He does not assume a very slight success. He is attributing half the pollution decline to the Act. A very slight success would be say 0.5% or 1% type of figure.

TWIN QUESTION: https://gmatclub.com/forum/since-the-pa ... 78972.html
_________________

The options are different in the twin question. VeritasKarishma Can you please tell me what is wrong with Choice E here?

IMO: C
C give a reason why the decline in business (premise) leads to decline in pollution (conclusion)

Hi Karishma,

Can you please help me with

"The author concludes that at least half of the pollution decline (9-10%) was caused by economic decline. "

How did we arrive at figure of 9-10%. I am little confused




Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB -

Ins't (A) an assumption or is (A) a strengthener ?

I thought (A) was an assumption



If so, isn't one assumption, that there are no THIRD reason for the lower level of pollutants.

Thats what (A) was getting at.

(A) is saying -- all the businesses that remain open -- their pollution levels haven't increased ?

Isn't that what (A) is saying or no ?

The conclusion of the argument is that the business decline, rather than the restrictions on industry embodied in the Clean Air Act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in industrial pollutants in the air. To find the assumption, we need a statement that links the decline in the number of businesses and workers to the reduction in industrial pollutants in the air. This statement must be necessary for the conclusion to follow logically from the premises.

Option B does not serve as the link between the decline and the reduction in industrial pollutants in the air. Rather, it suggests that the Clean Air Act may have contributed to the economic decline of the state, but this does not necessarily address the issue of whether the business decline or the act is responsible for the reduction in pollutants. In other words, option B does not establish a causal relationship between the Clean Air Act and the decline in pollutants, which is necessary to support the conclusion. Therefore, option C is a better assumption because it establishes a relationship between the number of businesses and workers and the amount of air pollution, which strengthens the conclusion that the business decline is responsible for at least half of the decline in industrial pollutants.

Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution.

Which of following is an assumption made in the passage above?

(A) Most businesses in the state have obeyed the regulations embodied in the Clean Air Act. (Incorrect: out of scope)
The conclusion is business decline is responsible for the decline in pollution because 10 percent of businesses have fallen. Because there is a business fall hence pollution falls but option A says regulation action follows is the reason of the fall of pollution.
(B) The economic decline of the state can be attributed, in part, to the effects of the Clean Air Act. (Incorrect: out of scope)
Instead of finding the assumption it is dedicated to the decline of economic
(C) The amount of air pollution in a given area is likely to be proportional to the number of businesses and workers active in that area. (the best option)
The amount of air pollution in a given area is likely to be proportional to the number of businesses and workers active in that area." is the assumption made in the passage. This option is essential for the argument's validity because it implies that a decrease in economic activity would naturally lead to a decrease in pollution, regardless of any environmental regulations
(D) The restrictions on business activity in other states are less stringent than are those embodied in the Clean Air Act. (Incorrect: out of scope
This is an unnecessary comparison
(E) The Clean Air Act has been only very slightly successful in achieving the goal of reduced air pollution. Incorrect: out of scope
It is talking about background information